|
|
|
List of forums -> Main forum -> Office efficiency |
||
| Topic: |
|
|||||
|
|||||
| I changed the size of my office to 50 places and now i cant get my office efficiency to 100%.if i put high salaries to reach the required qualification than my top manager cant support that qualification but if i put low salaries=low qualification The level of administrative load will go over 100%.what do i need to do? | |||||
|
| Message list: |
|
|||||
|
|||||
| I responded in your other thread, but for others encountering the same thing, look at:
1) # of Managers 2) Qualification of Managers 3) # of computers 4) Quality of Computers 5) Qualification in each area (My Office | Qualification) 6) Where you recently expanded 1-3 are fairly straightforward. #4 is the common "first miss" IMHO but just increase the quality and see what happens. #5 and #6 rather go together as this is just about understanding where you're pushing the envelope. For example, I expanded heavily into retail early on as I found limited success in production, so my Retail Qualification expanded rapidly. If you watch/track the growth rates then it will remind you of where your strengths are and where you're pushing the envelope. Also note that expanding "high tech" early often causes you to outstretch your management capability. Having highly skilled workers takes more skilled managers. Early on, it is very easy to expand beyond what your managers can handle. However, when discussing this stuff, I'm often reminded of the phrase that sums up my economic education. A phrase that I constantly have to remind people of now still 20 years later: Ceteris Paribus. And even in the game world this is rarely something that can be achieved. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| i changed the size of my office back to 10 places and now i got this results.this is driving me crazy Main Office page http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2267/officel.png ... Work efficiency page before i opened 3 new offices http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9238/workefficiencyoffice.png ... I also opened 3 new offices with 10 workers and about 4.5 Q of equipment Work efficiency page after i opened 3 new offices http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5458/workefficiencyofficeaft.png ... As you see this increases the workload instead of reducing it |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| The size of the office was probably fine at 50 but don't fill it. Having >13 managers in this case is necessary for the "other" workers you have elsewhere (say 15).
I would still believe you could benefit from better computers. I think I settled on a level of 6 or so when I was starting after some suggestions from others. Spreading the offices across multiple territories is mainly about spreading other work across locations as well. And this definitely can lead to benefits even early on. I also should point out that trying to be *exact* with certain items (like minimum requirements, exact # of workers, etc.) can lead to you being less than 100% because the system rounds these numbers and you can still wind up under skilled or under staffed. Plus these #'s are for the past week, not next week, so if you expand via sales in your stores for example you might require more workers leading to perpetually being <100%. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| Also, since you're building in Malaga it looks like, if you drop a store there then there are at least a couple of items which have easy potential for revenue w/o a large amount of work.
For example, the local Market for Perfume right now (open a Malaga store | Marketing | City Market) is trading at $170 per unit and quality of 5.6. This means that if you "happen" to have perfume at that price/quality available in your store then you'll do fairly well. All it takes then is stock and advertising to get people into your store. Given that StarterFund Perfumery and Toledano Trade Almacen Telodano are providing perfume around that range. If you bought 80/20 from each of those respectively then you wind up w/ a cost of ~$104 and a quality of ~5.66 (at least currently) bringing you an easy $65/unit in profit. Such situations change as others adapt their sales, but right now there is an opportunity here for fairly straightforward revenue on that particular product. In other situations it is not so easy to see the potential revenue, but this is a fairly easy one. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Moderator
4
5
3
6
4
|
|||||
| Right now i can't view your images, it says the account is blocked? please check or post them somewhere else?
You can also join the skype group and we can figure it out faster, i'll be glad to help |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| where can i join the skype group? | |||||
|
|||||
|
Moderator
4
5
3
6
4
|
|||||
| skype: do a search in the forum for "skype"
efficiency problem: image "workefficiencyoffice": 13 workers required, 10 available: better computers require less workers! 1. Reduce worker qualification slightly (maybe 6.9) to get Top manager efficiency to 100%. 2. increase computer quality until the required qualification of employees is used up. This may just work. if not, remove 10-20 workers at the controlled subdivisions. image "workefficiencyofficeaft" worker qualification (and computers) are both to low here |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| So, how about workload ?? What is the mechanism ? | |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| i did the same mistake prolly ur computer quality is too high which dont need replace computers and adjust employee salary and everything else respectively.....must make it good..... | |||||
![]() |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
| I find the quality of the computer essential too. But mine does not exceed quality 4, and management is 7 now. I see that i just put one extra manager above the minimum requirement and the efficiency is 100% and load is a comfortable 50-80% range.
I have also experienced a situation whereby a new office needed 7 managers instead of the minimum 1 to bring down the workload to below 90%, but this was resolved when I upped the quality of the computer, and give my managers training. So I believe quality or managers and computers go hand in hand. MIke |
|||||
List of forums -> Main forum-> Office efficiency | |
|


